BurkeFan Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I looked closely at their claims, and their stats are pretty dubious, in my mind. The main support that they're basing this on is the statistical probability of the names together, which, I have to admit, isn't necessarily a bad way to proceed. But, the "tomb" of "Mary Magdalene" has a different name on it, a different form for Mary. They're claiming it's Mary Magdalene based upon a spurious 4th century "Acts of James". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 The discovery is not new. The names are not uncommon names in the first century, and there is NO WAY to prove any DNA claims because Jesus left no descendants to sample from. The only thing they can prove is that these buried remains are related to each other, which is no big deal at all. Anything coming from the Discover channel must be viewed in the same way one views the National Enquirer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 [url="http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html"]http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Now if the Yeshua had Mary's DNA but no indicators from the father of James...that would be interesting! Also, pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now